Humans vs. Animals

[rialvestro]

This is something that has been bothering me for a long time. I'd like to point out that I'm not a vegitarian nor do I think of myself as an animal rights activast but this still tends to bother me.

New medicines and proceedures are tested on animals first before they're even made legal for human and yet it seems that medical standards for animals are years behind humans.

I don't think this particular case happens so much any more but it use to be that if an animal so much as broke a limb a vet would say "nothing we can do now but put the poor creature out of it's missery." and someone would shoot it in the head. Where as with humans and this would happen, they'd be put in a cast for a few weeks and be perfectly OK.

And there are still other situations like this where if it's a human than we do everything we can to save said human but if it's an animal we kill it.

Even dog pounds vs. an ophanich are like this. Some people feel like the pound is doggy prision and with good reason. We don't have child catchers to take kids the orphaich where they're locked up in cages untill they're adopted by nice familys. We have cops who arrest people and lock them up in cages. And we don't kill kids who go X amount of time without being adopted. The pound works like an orphanich but treats the dogs more like prisoners.

And lets not forget Bob Barker. We don't do that kinda thing to people, even when they're mentally unfit to ever be parents we never get people fixed so they can't have kids.

Now it's not all animals being treated badly, in some cases it's humans. If an animal can't be saved we shoot it to end it's missery. But a human that can't be saved has to suffer threw it till they die naturally.

I'm just dumb founded as to why when humans and animals are caught in the same situation they're not treated the same way. Animals are killed all the time under the guise of "ending their missery" but with humans it's never OK to kill them even if there is no way to save them and they're going to die anyway. To make matters worse, humans in that kind of situation are even allowed to end their own lives but it's OK to kill an animal?

We have pets "fixed" under the guise of controlling the population which seems wrong to me. If anything we should have humans fixed who have been conviced of rape or have been diagnosed with some mental disability which would enable them from careing for a child. And with humans we do have surgerys to fix people so they can't have kids without removing anything that's there. We just cut or tie off the tubes that lead to the organs that produce sperm and eggs. With animals we completly remove the organs that produce sperm and eggs.

I just don't understand why we can't treat all creatures the same way. Now about what I said in the begining, animal rights activasts typically are bind to the fact that animals can be violant creatures, even more so than humans. Particually the carnivors. This is why I don't consider myself on of them because I'm not blind to that fact and I'm not trying to argue how animals are better than humans. They're not.

I'm just saying that one of the things that suposidly sets us apart from them is our sense of moral values and are we really upholding thoughs values if we don't treat animals the same way we would want to be treated?

The basic debate question of this topic is do you think animals should be treated the same way as a human would be treated in the same situation? More spicifically, I'm talking about pets like dogs and cats, not farm animals like cows and chickens. (though maybe we can exspand on this topic as it progresses but for now lets just stick with pets and see where it goes. )

[Engesa Green once more]

If we constantly chose to treat animals the same way as humans we would use up alot of resources on the animals. the reason this does not happen is that people have asked themselves "Is an animal worth the same as a human?" and they found the answer to be no.

when something is worth less you wouldn't do the same to save it.

If someone had an old crappy peogot and a new shining ferrari and both of them were to burn out, he would propably choose to dump the peogot but still repair the ferrari.

It's the same with pets and humans. Humans are put higher than Animals, and frankly i think that's the best way to have it.

[helenwk]

You certainly said a lot, lol.

I agree that testing things on them instead of humans is a little sickening. Like for make-up products I read that with mascara, they test to see if it irritates your eye on an animal first. That bothers me, and obviously a lot of other people. I don't know how else you'd test something like that, but frankly, I don't really care... its make-up. Since when do we care about a silly product more than the comfort of another living, feeling organism.

However, with dog pounds, I don't agree that there's something wrong there. They're dogs, you can allow them to run around like you do in orphanages. Open a door and they'd all run out. It's hard to catch one dog, let alone twenty. At least children, for the most part, won't take off because they don't exactly have anywhere else to go. Plus some dogs are aggressive and won't play well with the others. I don't really know exactly how it works at pounds though.. I hope they let the dogs out regularly to walk, but other than that, I don't see another way except to keep them in cages.

I don't think there's anything wrong with getting your pets fixed either. I think if we didn't, especially with outdoor animals, there would just be too many cats and dogs to take care of. You can't really stop them from doing anything... you can't sit your cat down and have "the talk" and teach them about contraceptives, so fixing is really your only option. Interesting point though about fixing people that have been convicted of rape or have a disability, although I don't think it works the same way. Some rapists are wrongly convicted, for one, and I also think that someone would have a problem with taking away someone's right to reproduce because of a mistake they made that they may never make again. And then with disability, who decides who's mental stable enough to raise a child? Something just doesn't seem right about that. Humans do have a population control problem too, as our planet is becoming way to overpopulated, but you don't necessarily have to fix people to solve that. Unlike animals, you can educate people.

The last thing I have a comment about is the euthanasia thing. I agree that it's weird that we have no problem putting an animal out of it's misery without asking its permission, but when a human goes to the doctor asking for assisted suicide, suddenly there's a problem. If someone is in so much pain and know that they will inevitably die, then I don't understand why they can't make a decision about their own life.

To sum it up, I think that people should value the life of an animal just as much as they value the life of a human, but I just don't think in all cases they should be treated the exact same way. It's just not possible sometimes because they're different and they behave different ways, but I do think it's important to not put them through any unnecessary misery.

[Ryan]

as far as animal testing is concerned, it actually makes a lot of sense. I would rather test a possibly dangerous chemical combination on an animal that I can breed to exhaustion rather than on a human which takes years to grow.

The dog pound stuff, I have to agree with Engesa - as much as it hurts me to say kill the dogs, I also wouldn't want to spend my resources to keep them alive, if I did, I would just adopt one. The only reason orphanages aren't the same way is because people frown upon taking the life of a child. If dog pounds were run by dogs, I'm sure they would never euthanize unless absolutely necessary.

When it comes down to it, humans are not the same as other animals. Animals often do not treat humans as they would others of the same species, and it is obvious that we as humans don't return the favor. In fact, we as humans don't even treat all other humans as humans, why should we worry so much about treating animals like us?

I'm not saying that we should support the killing of animals or go out and get all make-up companies to do their testing on animals, I'm just saying that it is a necessary evil.

[rialvestro]

Apr 11, 2010 14:10:52 GMT -5 @helenwk said:

And then with disability, who decides who's mental stable enough to raise a child? Something just doesn't seem right about that.

Well legally a child can be taken away from a parent if they're deemed unfit due to mental disability. My brother's upstairs neibor is a mother of 3 but due to the simple fact that she was in special ed and supposidly only has a 6th grade inteligence her former inlaws took custidy of her first two kids useing that as their case and then when her 3rd child was born he was taken away from her right after birth. She had been in legal battles for 2 years just to get the little one back and I'm not sure what the problem is getting the other 2 kids back.

Honestly I think that's more wrong than preventing someone from having kids in the first place. And I'm not saying that someone like her should be fixed. That's actully really stupid that her kids were taken away because of that.

What I was actully talking about though are people like my brother who don't have the mental ability to care of themselfs let alone another person. My brother is mentally disabled. He's 29 years old and live in a group home for adults with special needs like him. Physically they are adults but mentally, I don't mean this to sound insulting at all but there's really no way I can say it that doesn't sound insulting. There are 4 year olds smarter than my brother.

Really, I'm not trying to be mean. I've done enough of that when I was little and didn't understand his condition. In fact ever sense high school whenever I'm with my brother I just try to watch out for him and help him as best I can. Someone could easily take advantage of him because he does have some money. I'm sure he collects disability which is sent to the home he's in, but he doesn't really know how to count or read prices so some cashier if they wanted to could charge him more than a product is worth, put the money in the register that the he ows, give him some change so it looks normal and then just pocket all the extra cash. (so far no one has actully tried it, at least not that I know of but if I thought of it someone else is bound to get the idea as well.)

Unlike animals, you can educate people.

You can educate animals too... to an extent... and if you keep your pets on a leash when you take them outside they're not going to be able to do anything anyway.

As for the educating people, yeah, I think I've said enough on that.

BTW when I mentioned the animal testing I was talking about medical stuff not make-up.

We test medical proceedures on animals first before they get to humans but then it seems years go by after the practice is common for humans before it becomes commonly avalible for animals.

They tested the damn things they should have rights to the same medical treatment humans do.

I'm not saying we shouldn't test on animals for medical reasons. We have to test on something living to find out if it can survive the treatment. I'm just asking why after it becomes common practice for humans to treat them that way we still kill animals saying "there's nothing we can do" that's a lie, the medical treatment does exsist because humans have it and we tested it on the animal first so we allready know it works, why can't we do it?

Sense you brought up animal testing for cosmetic reasons, that I do agree is wrong. Cosmetic testing is much different from medical testing. Medical testing we need, cosmetic testing we don't.

[helenwk]

I'm sorry to hear about your brother. And that lady that got her kids taken away, that's very sad. When I was thinking about you saying that you should fix people with disabilities, I was also thinking that it was unnecessary because I assumed that they don't normally have children, but obviously with the case with that woman sometimes they do.

You can educate animals but not about not reproducing. No matter what you do, they'll do that. And it's true you can keep them on leashes, but I was thinking more about outdoor cats. A lot of people have cats that go out and wander around outside without supervision. I suppose though for indoor animals or animals that you supervise outside it's not actually necessary.

I'm sorry I misunderstood what you said, that you meant medical procedures. Just wondering, but what procedures have you heard of that were tested on animals, but then later weren't allowed to be performed on them? I never heard of that, but I see where you're coming from, and I agree that it's wrong.

[bunnyfulwanderer]

1) I believe humans are animals, as do most people who have posted I imagine, although I understand why you made the topic title as it is, we needed it to make the distinction.

2) Human beings have a hard time ending life of another person even if it is a "mercy kill" Humans, espically in the western world think it's heroic to fight disease to the bitter end, holding on for every second of life you can get, even if inevitably, that time is painful and nothing but misery.

3) I think people aren't so enlightened that they'll treat animals and other life as equals anytime soon. I think testing on animals is wrong, but I can see the objection of doing so on humans, and I don't disagree that breeding "lab rats" has certainly helped drug testing along. The only real alternative is testing drugs on prisoners on death row, which is objectionable of itself (if you consider the human rights issue), and I don't really agree with the death sentence to begin with, but so long as appeals aren't being made it certainly isn't too objectionable to want to test on one of them, any side effects won't be too long lasting... it advances science by showing what the drug does to actual humans, which is the ideal test.

4) I do agree however, it's an issue of resources, nobody wants equality if it effects the bottom line. let me be clear, I HATE PETA. they are complete loons. But still, I think we should treat our animal companions with love, respect and consideration equal to that of a child.

5) Actually I would argue as a whole, animal populations are better controlled then human ones. in a population of fruit flies, based on the amount of flies in the population more offspring will be born per "couple" as the population increases the amount of offspring per pair decreases. Lemmings developed an instinctive survival mechanism that results in mass suicide if the population can't survive with the resources available. Yes animals tend to breed, never deciding to "stop" until they simply can't anymore, and an animal will also eat as much as it can in the wild becuase it doesn't know when it will get it's next meal. but a human will eat in excess when it knows it will have a meal the next day, furthermore if it's culture decides a large family is desirable that human will tend to have a large family, thus resulting in in overpopulation, there has yet to be discovered any population control mechanisms (warfare is insufficient) so in terms of wastefulness. humans take the cake.

6) no I am not a vegetarian, but I am a neopagan, if that makes a difference.

[rialvestro]

Apr 11, 2010 21:47:11 GMT -5 @helenwk said:

When I was thinking about you saying that you should fix people with disabilities, I was also thinking that it was unnecessary because I assumed that they don't normally have children, but obviously with the case with that woman sometimes they do.

Um... maybe you missunderstood something or I wasn't clear.

My brother is actully incapable of taking care of himself let alone a child.

The woman who had her kids taken away was tested with a 6th grade education but she is perfectly capable of taking care of herself.

I'm not saying every child who was placed in a special ed program is incapable of being a parent, that I would still agree is wrong. I mean they're just as capable as someone with a physical disability. They learn to over come their disabilities and that's great.

I'm just talking about people who can't survive on their own, can't overcome their disabilities.

And that is rather offensive to think they don't have kids because you're basically assumeing that they can't find a girl friend or boy friend, get curious, and fool around. I mean animals are able to figure out where to put it, that's just instinct. The problem is they're not going to know or understand anything that happens after.

There was actully a movie on LMN, I have no idea what this movie was called, I only caught part of it but these two mentally challenged people got togeather. One of them found a book of different positions and wanted to try some of them. Neither of them can read, they were just looking at pictures and they could barely even talk properly.

You can educate animals but not about not reproducing. No matter what you do, they'll do that.

You can't talk them them like you can with people but you can train them not to do things the same way you teach dogs not to bark.

I don't know if you've ever seen a young dog when it hasn't been fixed but they hump everything in sight not just animals and eventually you can train them not to, I've seen it done before.

I'm sorry I misunderstood what you said, that you meant medical procedures. Just wondering, but what procedures have you heard of that were tested on animals, but then later weren't allowed to be performed on them? I never heard of that, but I see where you're coming from, and I agree that it's wrong.

Well everything. Legally they have to go threw X amount of Animal testing first, then if they show positive results on animals they move to human testing for a while testing on volenteers. I actully wish they would use prisoners for this. Anyway if it continues to show positive results in all testing then it becomes avalible to the public for the first time. However for some reason all of this stuff doesn't become publicly avalible to vets until years after human doctors get it.

The cast example for one thing came from another movie. A child had a cast on for part of the movie, she had broken her arm. A horse had a broken leg and the told her "there's nothing we can do we'll have to put it down." the girl ended up saving the horse argueing the same way I am that if she can have a cast to fix her broken bone then they could do the same thing for the horse. (yeah I know I said no barn animals at first and now I'm talking about a horse but I also said we could exspand the topic to include other animals later on. )

Apr 12, 2010 1:42:37 GMT -5 @bunnyfulwanderer said:

3) I think people aren't so enlightened that they'll treat animals and other life as equals anytime soon. I think testing on animals is wrong, but I can see the objection of doing so on humans, and I don't disagree that breeding "lab rats" has certainly helped drug testing along. The only real alternative is testing drugs on prisoners on death row, which is objectionable of itself (if you consider the human rights issue), and I don't really agree with the death sentence to begin with, but so long as appeals aren't being made it certainly isn't too objectionable to want to test on one of them, any side effects won't be too long lasting... it advances science by showing what the drug does to actual humans, which is the ideal test.

You're talking about prisoners and human rights. Once they became prisoners they lost all of their rights. However not everyone in prison has actully commited a crime.

4) I do agree however, it's an issue of resources, nobody wants equality if it effects the bottom line. let me be clear, I HATE PETA. they are complete loons. But still, I think we should treat our animal companions with love, respect and consideration equal to that of a child.

I wouldn't speak so strongly about PETA. They might be a little miss guided but they do suport a good cause.

6) no I am not a vegetarian, but I am a neopagan, if that makes a difference.

I've never heard that word before, what is a neopagan?

[Nakor]

You can't talk them them like you can with people but you can train them not to do things the same way you teach dogs not to bark.

I don't know if you've ever seen a young dog when it hasn't been fixed but they hump everything in sight not just animals and eventually you can train them not to, I've seen it done before.

Trust me though, if there's a female in heat, no amount of training will prevent the male from wanting to mate. And the female in heat is exactly the same of course. Unlike in humans where mating is pleasurable, in animals it's an urgent irresistible urge. No amount of training will undo that.

I wouldn't speak so strongly about PETA. They might be a little miss guided but they do suport a good cause.

Thanks to their extremism, poor behaviour and poor spending, they hurt as many animals as they help and have a tendency to give animal lovers in general a bad name. Wherever you are on the scale from 'animals have no righs' to 'animals should be treated even better than we are', PETA is a problem in one fashion or another.

[rialvestro]

Apr 12, 2010 3:12:00 GMT -5 Nakor said:

I wouldn't speak so strongly about PETA. They might be a little miss guided but they do suport a good cause.

Thanks to their extremism, poor behaviour and poor spending, they hurt as many animals as they help and have a tendency to give animal lovers in general a bad name. Wherever you are on the scale from 'animals have no righs' to 'animals should be treated even better than we are', PETA is a problem in one fashion or another.

Maybe it's just me but talking about an entire group like that seems like the same thing as saying all religous people are going to push their religion on you or all blacks are gangsters.

There are individuals involved with PETA that I would agree are "loons" as you said but the group as a whole isn't really like that.

We could even be part of the group just by having this discussion.

The only people I really think are "loons" are not PETA but just spicific individuals who seem to live in a dilusional fanticy world as they use arguments like "animals don't start wars over land" when in fact they do. Animals are actully MORE violent than humans as some spices have been known to be canables, commit murder, and suicide for even more stupid and barbaric reasons than humans do.

I was watching a show where a mouse had made it's home, had it's babies and then spotted a cat. Apperently rather than allow the cat to kill her and her babies she does the cat's job for it and eats her own children before running off to find a new home and start all over.

Several species of spiders and insects, after mating, the male is killed. In some cases the female only bites his head off and saves the rest of the body for the babies to eat.

Bears are a little better. A bear would not kill it's own family but has no problem killing other bear cubs who are not their own.

But of course there are people who would like to pretend that this kinda stuff never happens.

[bunnyfulwanderer]

3) Human prisoners, while having forfeited some rights, are not lacking of all rights, and thus it becomes an issue. Prison should be seen as a separating someone from security who has failed to live within it, hopefully for rehabilitation, not as punishment, and even in the case of someone on death row, you have to wonder what is right and wrong

4) ty.rannosaur.us/9-retarded-peta-stunts/



Peta (from the very top of the moment) advocate some ridiculous ideals, I would compare them to that baptist church, considering the KKK stunt..

6) a Neopagain simply put is a part of a modern version of a prechristian religion, many neopagans spirituality involves reverence and service to the earth, and therefore many are vegetarians/environmentalists

[Nakor]

It's very different from treating an entire religion as extremist. PETA as a whole have extremist policies. It wasn't a few loons that went around chucking red paint on people, it was encouraged by PETA as a whole. It isn't a few loons that go parading around in the nude to make a point, it's encouraged and organized by PETA as a whole. They take actions too far, which cause people who are initially neutral on the issue of animal rights to rally against them in a sort of knee-jerk reaction. Then they come up with something utterly ridiculous -- like sea kittens -- as a group, and people cease to take the cause seriously at all. By taking extreme and absurd measures like these, they do their own cause -- and the cause of most other, rational animal care groups -- a great disservice.

Oh, and don't forget that PETA does try to push their ideals on others, at least as much as they can manage to do so. They aren't very good at it (mainly for the above reasons) but they do make the effort.

[The Monster]

I think you should take into account of all the people currently suffering from poverty and famines. Now what I would like to know is why people are so concerned with animals (due to the fact they are entirely instictive and predictable)- I know this is saying a lot but it's the truth. Now I don't think any of the abuses you have just listed are right or should be ignored, just that their are larger issues at hand which should be given more attention (providing health care, education, food, water and treatment towards HUMANS that need it most. Animals should be regulated, however I believe humans should be put first; regarding those who are living far more difficult lives than these animals (which at least have a prison and a way out of life)-just beinig contrdictory let's see where this goes

[bunnyfulwanderer]

Apr 12, 2010 11:16:53 GMT -5 Nakor said:

It's very different from treating an entire religion as extremist. PETA as a whole have extremist policies. It wasn't a few loons that went around chucking red paint on people, it was encouraged by PETA as a whole. It isn't a few loons that go parading around in the nude to make a point, it's encouraged and organized by PETA as a whole. They take actions too far, which cause people who are initially neutral on the issue of animal rights to rally against them in a sort of knee-jerk reaction. Then they come up with something utterly ridiculous -- like sea kittens -- as a group, and people cease to take the cause seriously at all. By taking extreme and absurd measures like these, they do their own cause -- and the cause of most other, rational animal care groups -- a great disservice.

Oh, and don't forget that PETA does try to push their ideals on others, at least as much as they can manage to do so. They aren't very good at it (mainly for the above reasons) but they do make the effort.

I have to agree. sometimes it's actually okay to label an entire group, becuase let's face it. there are other animal rights activists out there who not only actually do more good. but are less in your face about it, and make silly arguments that have little or no connection to actual reality. (I played the peta cooking mama game, I'm positive that turkeys do not ooze blood when you strip the feathers and I'm almost positive they're already dead by the time they do that )

let's face it. the difference between animal rights activists and peta and most Christians and the westboro baptist church (and a few other social causes I can mention ) is that the general population of the rest of the group isn't that vocal in condemning them, therefore we can take this silence as submission, furthermore extremism is not divergence from stated values, it's the result of being militant and literal, a result of the "law of unintended consequences" simply put, if extremist Christians believe it's okay to carry signs that say "god hates fags" and protest funerals, then somewhere in Christianity it is justified

and if members of PETA believe it's okay to stand outside a dogshow in klan uniforms, then somewhere in PETAs ideology comparing dog breeding to eugenics and white supremacy is justified

[rialvestro]

To my understanding PETA has allready been successfull to an exstent and are the reason we have some of the laws we do today regarding animal treatment.

I don't doubt that there are exstemeists out there who take animal rights too far and that they are members of PETA but what makes you think PETA organized every single exstreamist case?

This is PETA www.peta.org/ Maybe I'm missing something but it seems they've been around for 30 years, they have made some progress, and I fail to see anything that promotes any exstreamist acts like you've described.